What were some disappointing differences between the Harry Potter books and the Harry Potter movies?

I want to start off by apologizing for the length of this answer. I didn't intend for it to be so long, it just kept growing and growing.

There are a lot of things that were cocked up in the films, though it is a decent film series, it of course has nothing on the book series.

There are some things that are added that I don't think really add anything to the storyline (many people will disagree), such as the Burrow being burnt down.

Loads of things were left out which I really would have liked to see such as missing pensive memories included; Bob Ogden visiting the Gaunts, Tom Riddle visiting Hepzibah Smith, etc. Where on Earth was Peeves? Peeves were great and Rik Mayall had filmed as Peeves for PS, but it was cut - a bad decision.

I wanted to see Charlie Weasley, I liked the chapter where Norbert was taken off to Romania. Nearly Headless Nick's death day party, I was looking forward to that. A few things I really missed during OotP include Fred and George's 'pranks' like the swamp and the teachers pretending they didn't know how to get rid of it. All of the different rooms in the Dept of Mysteries

The Marauders were just touched upon, though unless you have also read the books (or Pottermore or maybe just read it online), you don't know who the Marauders are, you don't know that as mere teenagers, they performed a very difficult piece of magic to become animagi - I'm adding Rita Skeeter here too, she was just...meh! Where were the Veelas? The messages of support at Godric's Hollow? Merope f***ing Gaunt? Firenze being banished from the herd? What about Winky? SPEW? SPEW was instrumental in Ron and Hermione finally realising that they were made for each other (shhhh JK Rowling, I think you made the right call first time around). This part of course, all Hermione seemed to add to the challenges to get to the Philosopher's Stone was:

"You're a great wizard Harry."

Maybe the part left out that I missed the most was St Mungo's. It was just a fantastic part of the books, gave new insight into Neville, showed how sneaky the Death Eaters were and it was just left out.

Weasley is our King, Weasley is our King, He never lets the quaffle in, Weasley is our King.

Some things were altered or downplayed. Dobby. Yes, Dobby did play an important role in DH, but it was Dobby who got Harry the gillyweed - not Neville. It was Dobby who discovered the Room of requirement / Come and Go Room - not Neville. Dobby wore all of the tea cozies Hermione was knitting (well Ive already mentioned the Society for the Promotion of Elfish Wellfare), he held Ron is such high regard as he was given socks - odd of course - and his very own Weasley jumper. God bless his colourful cotton socks!

Another certain house elf was a bit neglected, a wrinkly little thing named Kreacher. In DH, Kreacher becomes loyal to the trio, cooking them meals, cleaning, he is happy, finally, truly happy (and enjoying serving them whilst they plan the break in at the MoM for aaaaages)...then they have to leave him. That isn't the last we see of Kreacher however, as in the books, Kreacher leads the charge of Hogwarts house elves to the aide of Harry and the 'goodies' in the Battle for Hogwarts.

"Fight, fight for my master, the defender of the House elves. Fight the Dark Lord, in the name of brave Regulus! Fight!"

A lot of dialogue was of course changed, but a lot was taken from Ron, leaving him as comic relief, whereas in the books, he was Harry's closest confidant, he was his best friend and although they (Harry, Ron and Hermione) were indeed a trio, Harry and Ron were the best of friends. I don't think this comes across in the films. There were things that Harry and Hermione didn't know about as they were brought up my muggles, so Ron explained things, he was more intelligent, braver and more like a real person in the books. I still really liked Ron in the films, but he was a shadow of his literary self.


Harry: Malfoy called Hermione something – it must’ve been really bad, because everyone went wild.Ron: It was bad. Malfoy called her ‘Mudblood,’ Hagrid –Hermione: But I don’t know what it means. I could tell it was really rude, of course –Ron: It’s about the most insulting thing he could think of. Mudblood’s a really foul name for someone who is Muggle-born – you know, non-magic parents. It’s a disgusting thing to call someone. Dirty blood, see. Common blood. It’s ridiculous.


Hermione: He called me a Mudblood.Harry: What’s a Mudblood? Hermione: It means dirty blood. Mudblood’s a really foul name for someone who’s Muggle-born. Someone with non-magic parents. Someone like me. It’s not a term one usually hears in civilized conversation.

Other characters were changed - not for the better - in the films, Mr Weasley was pretty much a tool to give away information about the MoM. Bill Weasley just so happened to be Ron's older brother, his wife was just a very pretty half veela...An Excess of Phlegm. I don't think I need to say much in regards to Ginny Weasley, she was great in the books. Percy Weasley was soooo much more of a little bastard in the books, although he does come around, he deserved a good slap. Fred and George were good, but they were just a lot funnier and real in the books. Okay, basically the entire Weasley family bar Molly (okay, Ron too) wasn't very good.

Although Harry Potter is probably one of my least favourite characters in the Harry Potter series, in the books, he is just 'more' than in the films. His accomplishments are attributed to other characters and some of his less than admirable (but sometimes necessary) actions are nonexistent. For example, Peter Pettigrew strangles himself with his fancy new silver hand after Harry reminds him that he owes him a life debt. Harry also unsuccessfully attacked Tonks' mother Andromeda Tonks. She was Bellatrix and Narcissa's sister and looked a lot like the former.

Alright, I decided to add this little bit in, it always annoyed me - clothes. Wizards do not wear muggle clothes unless they are going into the muggle world, and usually, they do it very badly indeed...bar Barty Crouch Senior.

I didn't like the change in Harry's decision on what to do with the Elder Wand. Firstly, as far as we can see, Harry didn't repair his own Holly and phoenix feather wand and he snapped the wand rather than having it returned to Dumbledore's tomb.

Talking of Dumbledore's tomb, why was his funeral not shown? This scene would have shown just how much Dumbledore was respected by so many in the wizarding world, something which I don't think was portrayed very well in the films. So many people, beasts and creatures attended to pay their final respects. In some ways, it was a marker of the end of life as they knew it. Dumbledore in some ways protected them all. He was the wisest of them all and...he's gone. It wasn't just a few teachers and a handful of school children raising their wands to the heavens (though that was an emotional scene), his death was much bigger than that.

These are just the few that come to mind, I obviously have to end with...THIS:

The bang was like a cannon blast, and the golden flames that erupted between them, at the dead center of the circle they had been treading, marked the point where the spells collided. Harry saw Voldemort's green jet meet his own spell, saw the Elder Wand fly high, dark against the sunrise, spinning across the enchanted ceiling like the head of Nagini, spinning through the air toward the master it would not kill, who had come to take full possession of it at last. And Harry, with the unerring skill of the Seeker, caught the wand in his free hand as Voldemort fell backward, arms splayed, the slit pupils of the scarlet eyes rolling upward. Tom Riddle hit the floor with a mundane finality, his body feeble and shrunken, the white hands empty, the snakelike face vacant and unknowing. Voldemort was dead, killed by his own rebounding curse, and Harry stood with two wands in his hand, staring down at his enemy's shell.
0 views0 comments

©2021 by The Order of Stag.